4 ms·

Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me, but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians. Of

Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me, but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians. Of course since OEIS is finite, there will always be numbers which don't make it. What's really interesting is that some numbers are disproportionately underrepresented. They appear much less often than other numbers of the same size. And if you plot each number by the number of times it occurs, it makes a really interesting pattern: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YysNM2JoFo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YysNM2JoFo

yodon 10y ago
Fascinating video - the distribution seems likely related to the HN post from two days ago on multiple random processes being sufficient to generate Zipf's law distributions [0] (given the observation a couple posts above that the first number not in the list is 18159 and the steady average decrease in frequency with value there isn't really much difference between rank-ordering and value ordering here). That exponent they find sure looks Zipf like. Oh, and happy new year's! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281787
vog 10y ago
> Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me, but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians. I have a diploma in math (equiv. to master of science in math) and I'm interested in 18159. Does that count? (Moreover, I'm interested in 18159 for exactly the reason you stated.)
Someone 10y ago
”Of course since OEIS is finite, there will always be numbers which don't make it”. 18159 appears in OEIS, but its search interface isn’t perfect. For example it appears in http://oeis.org/A000027 http://oeis.org/A000027: ”The positive integers. Also called the natural numbers, the whole numbers or the counting numbers, but these terms are ambiguous.”
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Yes 18159 does fit the definition of a natural number. But OEIS only contains the first few terms of every sequence. So I'm technically correct that it isn't in OEIS. And I would argue that being the 10k+ term in a sequence doesn't qualify as interesting.

yodon 10y ago

Fascinating video - the distribution seems likely related to the HN post from two days ago on multiple random processes being sufficient to generate Zipf's law distributions [0] (given the observation a couple posts above that the first number not in the list is 18159 and the steady average decrease in frequency with value there isn't really much difference between rank-ordering and value ordering here). That exponent they find sure looks Zipf like. Oh, and happy new year's! [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281787 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13281787

vog 10y ago

> Well the first number that doesn't appear in OEIS is 18159. That make it interesting to me, but apparently this number isn't interesting to mathematicians. I have a diploma in math (equiv. to master of science in math) and I'm interested in 18159. Does that count? (Moreover, I'm interested in 18159 for exactly the reason you stated.)

Someone 10y ago

”Of course since OEIS is finite, there will always be numbers which don't make it”. 18159 appears in OEIS, but its search interface isn’t perfect. For example it appears in http://oeis.org/A000027 http://oeis.org/A000027: ”The positive integers. Also called the natural numbers, the whole numbers or the counting numbers, but these terms are ambiguous.”

Houshalter 10y ago
Yes 18159 does fit the definition of a natural number. But OEIS only contains the first few terms of every sequence. So I'm technically correct that it isn't in OEIS. And I would argue that being the 10k+ term in a sequence doesn't qualify as interesting.